Thinking about The Oath Keepers

I'm slightly aware of this group, but truthfully I know nothing about them except their stated premise of keeping their oath to the Constitution despite whatever other commands they are given. I've simply run across them in researching survival stuff a few years back. I'd like to think what they say is exactly what they mean, and not a guise for yet another paramilitary group.

With the increasing turmoil in the US, and our governmental making laws distancing itself from the Constitution, I've wondered a lot lately about the oath our military men and women take, and what it really means to them deep in their inner core. 

"Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic … and meant it.

Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and that oath will be kept. We won’t “just follow orders." Source

There are detailed specifications of what the Oath Keepers have sworn NOT do to the American people, fully spelled out on the source page above. It's rather interesting.

I've wondered if we might ever have to depend on the Oath Keepers someday. Would my 3 brothers and 1 sister, all who were in the US military and swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic, actually defend the Constitution in the face of peril?

I remember that US military troops were armed and told to shoot citizens if necessary during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. No, I'm not talking about criminal looters or thieves during that time, but shooting citizens who refused the confiscation of weapons. Seizing weapons was a violation of the right to bear arms, the Second Amendment, and lack of protection against unlawful search and seizure was a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

I don't remember how bad it got at the time, but I do remember reading later the conflicting emotions of the soldiers involved. All of them obeyed their orders, but none felt at ease "making war" on American citizens.

But, they didn't stand up... will The Oath Keepers actually stand up?

Overlooked or Forgotten Heroic Actions, "Granny D"

Doris Haddock, called "Granny D" by her grandchildren, burdened by arthritis and emphysema, walked 3,000 miles from California to Washington, DC in the year 2000 to deliver her message. And, deliver her message she did! 

She was arrested, and her statement before the court is reprinted below:

"Your Honor, the old woman who stands before you was arrested for reading the Declaration of Independence in America's Capitol Building. I did not raise my voice to do so and I blocked no hall.

The First Amendment to the Constitution, Your Honor, says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, so I cannot imagine what legitimate law I could have broken. We peaceably assembled there, Your Honor, careful to not offend the rights of any other citizen nor interrupt the peaceful enjoyment of their day. The people we met were supportive of what we were saying and I think they--especially the children--were shocked that we would be arrested for such a thoroughly wholesome American activity as respectfully voicing our opinion in our own hall. Any American standing there would have been shocked. For we were a most peaceable assembly, until Trent Lott's and Mitch McConnell's police came in with their bullhorns and their shackles to arrest us. One of us, who is here today, was injured and required a number of stitches to his head after he fell and could not break his own fall. He was detained for over four hours without medical care. I am glad we were only reading from the Declaration of Independence --I shudder to think what might have happened had we read from the Bill of Rights.

I was reading from the Declaration of Independence to make the point that we must declare our independence from the corrupting bonds of big money in our election campaigns.

And so I was reading these very words when my hands were pulled behind me and bound: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."

Your Honor, we would never seek to abolish our dear United States. But alter it? Yes. it is our constant intention that it should be a government of, by and for the people, not the special interests, so that people may use this government in service to each other's needs and to protect the condition of our earth.

Your Honor, it is now your turn to be a part of this arrest. If your concern is that we might have interfered with the visitor's right to a meaningful tour of their Capitol, I tell you that we helped them have a more meaningful one. If your concern is that we might have been blocking the halls of our government, let me assure you that we stood to one side of the Rotunda where we would not be in anyone's way. But I inform you that the halls are indeed blocked over there.

They are blocked by the shameless sale of public policy to campaign contributors, which bars the doors and the halls to the people's legitimate needs and the flow of proper representation. We Americans must put an end to it in any peaceful way that we can. Yes, we can speak when we vote, and we do. But we must also give our best effort to encourage the repair of a very broken system. We must do both.

And the courts and prosecutors in government have a role, too. If Attorney General Reno would properly enforce the federal bribery statute, we would see lobbyists and elected officials dragged from the Capitol Building and the White House, their wrists tied, not ours. I would be home in New Hampshire, happily applauding the television news as my government cleaned its own house.

In my 90 years, this is the first time I have been arrested. I risk my good name --for I do indeed care what my neighbors think about me. But, Your Honor, some of us do not have much power, except to put our bodies in the way of an injustice--to picket, to walk, or to just stand in the way. It will not change the world overnight, but it is all we can do.

So I am here today while others block the halls with their corruption. Twenty-five million dollars are changing hands this very evening at a fund raiser down the street. It is the corrupt sale of public policy, and everyone knows it. I would refer those officials and those lobbyists, Your Honor, to Mr. Bob Dylan's advice when he wrote: "Come senators, congressmen, Please heed the call. Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall."

Your Honor, the song was a few years early, but the time has now come for change. The times are changing because they must. And they will sweep away the old politician --the self-serving, the self-absorbed, the corrupt. The time of that leader is rapidly fading. We have come through a brief time when we have allowed ourselves to be entertained by corrupt and hapless leaders because they offer so little else, and because, as citizens, we have been priced out of participation and can only try to get some enjoyment out of their follies. But the earth itself can no longer afford them. We owe this change to our children and our grandchildren and our great grandchildren. We need have no fear that a self-governing people can creatively and effectively address their needs as a nation and a world if the corrupt and greedy are out of their way, and ethical leadership is given the helm.

Your Honor, to the business at hand: the old woman who stands before you was arrested for reading the Declaration of Independence in America's Capitol Building. I did not raise my voice to do so and I blocked no hall. But if it is a crime to read the Declaration of Independence in our great hall, then I am guilty."
Source

Indentured Politicians - What's in it for Them??

I came across an interesting term recently, new to me but maybe not to you. It really explains a LOT! The term is "Indentured Politicians". Does that need any explanation? LOL.

But just in case it needs explanation, "indentured politicians" are those who "owe favors" to the big contributors to their election campaigns, and the politicians return the "favor" by voting in favor those contributors when new laws (and other regulatory federal legislation) come up for votes, rather than voting the requirements of the population they are charged to represent. I'm posting my thoughts about this here because I believe it explains why the regulatory agencies for our food systems have gone bonkers.

When it takes millions of dollars (or sometimes billions of dollars depending on the office sought) to be successful in a political campaign, is it any wonder why big corporations see an advantage to finance a candidate who will favor the corporation's interests in future legislation?

One interesting question I have, is why a candidate will spend millions of dollars campaigning for a position that pays far less than they spend to get there? What else is in it for them? The current salary (2011-2012) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year. House Representatives are elected for a 2 year term, and Senate representatives for 6 years.

In order for a member of the House of Congress to qualify for a pension, they would have to be elected 3 times, for a total 6 year payout of $1,044,000, which is far less total salary than what they spent to get it. A Senator only has to serve 1 term (6 years) to qualify for a pension; same pay for 1 Senate term of 6 years that a Congressional Representative gets for 3 terms (6 years, $1,044,000), far less than either spent to get there.

So, where's the payoff for election to federal office, when you consider cost to get there versus salary once there? It certainly IS NOT in the salary, and probably not even in Employee Benefits, although the overall "esteem" of the Office no doubt strokes their ego. That STILL doesn't cut it in the money balance.

• In a complex system of calculations, administered by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, congressional pay rates also affect the salaries for federal judges and other senior government executives.
• During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin considered proposing that elected government officials not be paid for their service. Other Founding Fathers, however, decided otherwise.
• From 1789 to 1855, members of Congress received only a per diem (daily payment) of $6.00 while in session, except for a period from December 1815 to March 1817, when they received $1,500 a year. Members began receiving an annual salary in 1855, when they were paid $3,000 per year. ($3,000 of 1855 dollars would be worth: $78,947.37 in 2012)

Please note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to receive a pension.

The amount of a congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary. (80% of the current pay of $174,000 is $139,200. I could live on that!)

President's Salary
Effective January 1, 2001, the annual salary of the president of the United States was increased to $400,000 per year, including a $50,000 expense allowance. Please note that the Presidential salary doubled in 2001.

The increase was approved as part of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-58), passed in the closing days of the 106th Congress.

"Sec. 644. (a) Increase in Annual Compensation.--Section 102 of title 3, United States Code, is amended by striking '$200,000' and inserting '$400,000'. (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take effect at noon on January 20, 2001."

Vice President's Salary
The salary of the vice president is currently (for 2011) $230,700. (BTW, who IS our VP [yes, I do know his name] and what does he do? I never see his name in the news.)

Presidential Retirement and Maintenance
Under the Former Presidents Act, each former president is paid a lifetime, taxable pension that is equal to the annual rate of basic pay for the head of an executive federal department -- $199,700 in 2011 -- the same annual salary paid to secretaries of the Cabinet agencies.

Each former president and vice president may also take advantage of funds allocated by Congress to help facilitate their transition to private life. These funds are used to provide suitable office space, staff compensation, communications services, and printing and postage associated with the transition. As an example, Congress authorized a total of $1.5 million for the transition expenses of outgoing president George H.W. Bush and Vice President Dan Quayle.

So, where IS the payoff? It sure doesn't appear to favor Joe Citizen who voted for Representation in Congress.

What's Up with all this?

I don't normally write political rants, other than the politics concerning my foods. But these things really confuse me, living as I do in a Republic (remember the Pledge of Allegiance?).

Congress wants to limit my access to research papers
http://www.anh-usa.org/no-science-for-you/

FBI says paying for your morning coffee with cash is a potential terrorist activity
http://www.infowars.com/fbi-says-paying-for-your-morning-coffee-with-cash-a-potential-terrorist-activity/

Feds Label Bulk Buying of Food a Potential Terrorist Activity
http://www.infowars.com/feds-label-bulk-buying-of-food-a-potential-terrorist-activity/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/feds-label-bulk-buying-of-food-a-potential-terrorist-activity.html

Bill Clears Path For 30,000 Surveillance Drones Over US In Next Ten Years
http://www.infowars.com/bill-clears-path-for-30000-surveillance-drones-over-us-in-next-ten-years/
(That's 3.75 planes for every mile of the nearly 6,000 miles of Mexican and Canadian international land borders plus over 2,000 miles of coastal waters surrounding the Florida Peninsula and the island of Puerto Rico.)

Conspiracy Theorists Are Being Rebranded As Domestic Terrorists
http://www.infowars.com/why-conspiracy-theorists-are-being-rebranded-as-domestic-terrorists/

The Sacrificial Caste of Children
http://www.monbiot.com/2012/01/16/the-sacrificial-caste/

The 99 Percent Declaration

I've been watching the growing "Occupy" movement for several weeks with some curiousity, even though there seemed to be no particular agenda. Now a Working Group that includes pro bono lawyers and university students arrested in NYC for their peaceful demonstrations, have drafted The 99% Declaration. 

I will be following this closely because among other things, it addresses the greed prevalent in corporations that affect the laws of this country via political contributions and influence, which means they affect me. (Think BigAg, BigPharma, etc.)

The Working Group wants to draws up a formal petition of grievances voted by to-be-elected representatives of all congressional districts. The US Constitution provides for a petition of a list of grievances to present to the government, but apparently by Constitutional Law only a duly elected body can legitimize a list of demands from the People. Their proposal is only a starting proposal and sample list of just demands on the government, plus how they hope to accomplish it via elected representatives.

Their posted sample proposal includes a fair tax across the board (and cutting ALL tax loopholes), eliminating the contributions (open or hidden) that buy politicians, and a host of other proposals that sound sensible to me, from the War Machine to Health Care and Jobs. 

I encourage you to read the whole declaration... it's short and to the point. Who knows, it may even gain wide-spread support!

US Supreme Court and MY Food Rights

Photo by dbking

If I don't speak for me, who will??

When I was young, I naively believed our courts were all about fairness and justice. Over time, based on what I saw, experienced, and read, I have come to believe the courts are all about enforcing "Laws" passed by people with something other than fairness in mind. (Oh, my... could it possibly be money?) Certainly I have seen a lot of empirical evidence in the last few years showing our basic Constitutional Rights are being abrogated.

A decision on my part to drink fresh (unpastuerized) milk and make fresh (unpastuerized) cheese comes to mind, yet the FDA through their "Healthy People 2020" plan has an agenda to remove ALL fresh (unpastuerized) milk and fresh (unpastuerized) milk products (like cheese and yogurt) in the US by 2020. Why is it their business to deny the 16 million or so Americans who now choose the healthy benefits of fresh milk (processed in a safe, sanitary manner, of course) over enzyme dead pasteurized milk in the stores?

Why is it the government's business what I choose to eat?


So whether it will prove to hold any weight or not, I was glad to read the following, as a hopeful start back to the right direction. (Yes, my hopes are high... but my expectations are much, much lower.)

"On June 17, 2011 the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of the best and most important decisions ever on federalism.  The Court unanimously held that not just states but individuals have standing to challenge federal laws as violations of state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment. This decision is as radical in the direction of liberty as the New Deal was radical in the direction of socialism.

In short, freedom advocates just got a green light from the United States Supreme Court to bring more cases under the 9th and 10th Amendments. This will have huge -positive- implications for freedom so long as the current constitution of the court holds.

Here is our favorite passage:  “Federalism secures the freedom of the individual. It allows States to respond, through the enactment of positive law, to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times without having to rely solely upon the political processes that control a remote central power."

The Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Source